community services and operations committee comité des … · 2006-09-25 · community services...

Community Services and Operations CommitteeComité des services communautaires et des opérations

Agenda 8Ordre du jour 8

Wednesday, April 26, 2000 - 9:15 a.m.Le mercredi 26 avril 2000 - 9 h 15

Victoria Hall, First LevelBytown Pavilion, City Hall

Salle Victoria, niveau 1Pavillon Bytown, hôtel de ville

ii

Community Services and Operations Committee (Agenda 8 - April 26, 2000)Comité des services communautaires et des opérations (Ordre du jour 8 - Le 26 avril 2000)

Confirmation of MinutesRatification des procès-verbaux

Minutes 7 (April 12, 2000)

Procès-verbal 7 (Le 12 avril 2000)

Index

Information ItemsArticles pour information

Action ItemsArticles pour exécution

1. Encroachment By-law Number 167-73 - Minor RevisionArrêté municipal 167-73 sur l’empiétement - Révision mineureRef.: ACS2000-PW-ENG-0008 City Wide

1

2. Telephone Agreement - Bell CanadaEntente sur les services téléphoniques - Bell CanadaRef.: ACS2000-PW-ENG-0009 City Wide

5

3. Tender 01400-96873-T02 Routine Sewer Cleaning Services Tender 00100-91063-T01 Building Sewer MaintenanceAppel d’offres no 01400-96873-T02 - Services de nettoyage périodiquedes égoutsAppel d’offres no 00100-91063-T01 - Entretien des branchementsd’égoutRef.: ACS2000-PW-OPS-0004 City Wide

19

4. Licenses - Taxis - Accessible CabsPermis - Taxis - Taxis AccessiblesRef.: ACS2000-CV-DIA-0001 City Wide

27

iii


5. Royal Oak Pathway: Permanent Closure and Removal of ParkDedicationSentier Royal Oak: fermeture permanente et suppression de ladénomination du parcRef.: ACS2000-CM-BUS-0008 OT3 %% Southgate

31

Regional MattersQuestions r��gionales

Members’ Reports - EnquiriesRapports des membres - demandes de renseignements

Councillor/Conseiller Stéphane Émard-Chabot, Chairperson/Président

Councillor/Conseillère Inez Berg, Vice-Chairperson/Vice-présidente

Councillor/Conseillère Elisabeth Arnold

Councillor/Conseillère Diane Deans

Councillor/Conseiller Allan Higdon

Councillor/Conseiller Shawn LittleLZF

1


April 11, 2000 ACS2000-PW-ENG-0008(File: LBT6210/0110)

Department of Urban Planning and PublicWorks

Ward/QuartierCity Wide

• Community Services and OperationsCommittee / Comité des servicescommunautaires et des opérations

• City Council / Conseil municipal

Action/Exécution

1. Encroachment By-law Number 167-73 - Minor Revision

Arrêté municipal 167-73 sur l’empiétement - Révision mineure

Recommendation

That By-law Number 167-73 be amended to allow for the construction of wheelchair(handicap) accesses on City of Ottawa boulevards in accordance with the wording set out inDocument 1.

April 11, 2000 (10:33a) April 11, 2000 (12:57p)

Edward RobinsonCommissioner of Urban Planning and PublicWorks

Approved byJohn S. BurkeChief Administrative Officer

TH:th

Contact: Trevor Harris - 244-5300 ext. 1-3764

Financial Comment

There are no direct financial implications to the City.

April 11, 2000 (9:46a)

for Mona MonkmanCity Treasurer

BH:cds

2


Executive Report

Reasons Behind Recommendation

The Ontario Building Code contains regulations regarding the construction, demolition,renovation and alteration of buildings within the Province of Ontario. Part 11 Renovation ofthe Provincial Regulations applies to buildings that have been in existence for at least fiveyears and where construction is proposed. The basic principle of Part 11 is to ensure that theperformance level of a building after alteration is equal to or greater than the performancelevel of a building prior to alteration. In those situations where, as a result of the extent ofproposed alterations, it is determined that a building entrance must comply with the currentbarrier-free design standards, it may be necessary to construct a ramp in the barrier-free pathof travel to and from the entrance to the building.

With a number of older buildings the set-back between the building entranceway and theproperty line/road allowance may be such that there is insufficient space to allow for theconstruction of a handicap/wheelchair ramp without some degree of encroachment on thepublic boulevard (road allowance). However, the Encroachment By-law, 167-73, does notpermit the construction of new permanent encroachments on the public road allowance. Inorder to provide additional flexibility to owners who wish to upgrade or renovate existingbuildings in compliance with the Ontario Building Code, it is recommended thathandicap/wheelchair accesses be permitted on the boulevard subject to a number ofconditions. These conditions would include the requirement that there be sufficient clearspace for pedestrian movement and that the structure not be placed so as to interfere withmaintenance operations. The changes to the By-law are outlined in Document 1.

Consultation

Given the proposed changes to the By-law are of a minor technical nature, no publicconsultation was considered necessary. Consultation with the office of the City Solicitor wasconducted.

Disposition

Office of the City SolicitorUndertake the necessary action to process the amending by-law to City Council.

Department of Urban Planning and Public Works, Engineering BranchEnforce By-law 167-73 in accordance with the most recent revisions.

List of Supporting Documentation

Document 1 Amendments to the Encroachment By-law Number 167-73

3


Part II - Supporting Documentation

Document 1

BY-LAW NUMBER

A by-law of The Corporation of the City of Ottawa amending By-law Number167-73.

The Council of The Corporation of the City of Ottawa enacts as follows:

1. By-law Number 167-73 entitled "A By-law of The Corporation of the City ofOttawa regulating encroachments on streets", as amended, is amended by adding,immediately after Section 7, the following section:

7A. The provisions of Section 6 of this by-law do not apply to prevent, in thecase of renovations to an existing building, the erection of a permanent surfaceencroachment that is a ramp located in a barrier-free path of travel to and from anentrance to a building, provided that the addition of a ramp is required by Part 11Renovation of O. Reg. 403/97 made under the Building Code Act, 1992, S.O.1992, Chap. 23 and By-law Number 175-93, as amended, for a building entranceto comply with barrier-free design standards and the said encroachment complieswith Section 26A.

2. The said By-law Number 167-93 is amended by adding, immediately after Section26, the following section:

26A. If the proposed encroachment is a permanent encroachment that is a ramplocated in a barrier-free path of travel to and from an entrance to a building andconforms in all respects with the provisions of this by-law, the Commissioner mayapprove the application provided that:(a) the applicant has obtained any permits required;(b) the applicant will undertake the appropriate circulation process and obtain

the approval of underground utility agencies regarding the location of theramp;

(c) the encroachment will not be placed so as to constitute a visibility obstructionfor pedestrians or vehicles, a safety hazard, a physical obstruction forpedestrians or vehicles or an obstruction to maintenance operations or anypublic service on the highway;

(d) the encroachment will be placed so that at least 2.6 metres of sidewalkimmediately adjacent to the ramp shall be maintained clear of all obstructionsand available for uninhibited passage, except where the sidewalk is less than2.6 metres in width, in which case at least 1.83 metres of sidewalkimmediately adjacent to the ramp shall be maintained clear of all obstructions;and

4


(e) the owner of the premises to which the encroachment is appurtenant shall berequired to enter into an agreement with the Corporation in a formsatisfactory to the City Solicitor, which agreement when signed by bothparties shall constitute the permit. The agreement shall contain the owner'sconsent to the procedures prescribed by the by-law respecting revocation ofthe permit and discontinuance of encroachments, an indemnity by the ownerto the same effect as Section 17, and the owner’s consent to the procedureprescribed by Section 32.

GIVEN under the corporate seal of the City of Ottawa this day of ,2000.

CITY CLERK MAYOR

5


April 11, 2000 ACS2000-PW-ENG-0009(File: EW218-44-1)





Action/Exécution

2. Telephone Agreement - Bell Canada

Entente sur les services téléphoniques - Bell Canada

Recommendations

1. That City Council approve the Corporation of the City of Ottawa entering into anagreement with Bell Canada regarding telephone booths on City of Ottawa roadallowances in accordance with the terms and conditions outlined in Document 1, subjectto the approval of the Ottawa Transition Board.

2. That the Commissoner of Urban Planning and Public Works, be delegated the authorityto make changes on an ongoing and as required basis to Schedule “A” of Document 1, with respect to the physical location and number of telephone booths provided that theterms and conditions of the above agreement have been met.

April 14, 2000 (9:12a) April 17, 2000 (9:21a)



TH:th

Contact: Trevor Harris - 244-5300 ext. 1-3764

6


Financial Comment

Subject to approval of these recommendations, additional revenue in the estimated amount of$8,400 will be credited to the appropriate accounts.

April 13, 2000 (3:06p)


CP:cds

Executive Report

Reasons Behind Recommendations

The City has been approached by Bell Canada regarding the development of a comprehensiveagreement with respect to telephone booths located on City of Ottawa property. Following areview of their proposal, the Department of Urban Planning and Public Works has enteredinto discussions with Bell Canada in order to develop a separate agreement for telephonebooths located on City of Ottawa road allowances. It was felt that a separate agreement wasin the best interests of the City in light of the unique safety and maintenance considerationsrelevant to public road allowances.

The proposed telephone booth agreement incorporates a number of terms and conditionsthat deal with vehicular and pedestrian traffic factors, public safety, and the protection ofpublic road allowances. It should be noted that the agreement provides Bell Canada with anon-exclusive right to operate its telephone booths on City of Ottawa road allowances, whichin no way restricts the right of the City to permit other service providers to place and operatetelephone booths on the municipal road allowances. The agreement also provides that theagreement can be reassigned with the written consent of the other party thereby providing fora transition to the new City of Ottawa. In addition, the agreement improves the level ofcompensation that the City receives from existing telephone booths. Under the currentarrangement the City receives compensation based on a sliding scale varying from 0% to 7%based on the level of net revenue. In accordance with the attached agreement the City wouldreceive compensation at 16% of net revenue for each telephone booth on the road allowance.

In light of transition, approval of the agreement is required by the Ottawa Transition Boardpursuant to Ontario Regulation 100/00 made under the City of Ottawa Act, 1999, S.O. 1999,c.14. Specifically, Ottawa Transition Board Financial Guideline No. 1, passed pursuant toRegulation 100/00, provides that an old municipality shall not enter into a contract thatextends beyond December 31, 2000 unless it is done either with the approval of the Ottawa

7


Transition Board or falls within one of the prescribed exemptions. This particular agreementwould not fall within an exemption and as a result would require the approval of the OttawaTransition Board. Therefore, upon City Council’s approval of the proposed agreement theOffice of the Chief Administrative Office is to forward the proposed agreement to the OttawaTransition Board.

The proposed agreement formalizes terms and conditions with respect to existing telephonebooths on the road allowance and provides the City with an improved level of compensationfor this equipment. It is for these and the reasons outlined above that the Departmentrecommends that the City enter into the proposed agreement with Bell Canada.

Consultation

Given the that the proposed agreement formalizes the situation with respect to existingtelephone booths on City road allowance no public consultation was considered necessary. The office of the City Solicitor was involved in the development of the proposed agreement.

Disposition

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer

Office of the Chief Administrative Officer to process the request for approval of Document 1to the Ottawa Transition Board.

Office of the City Solicitor

Upon approval of the Ottawa Transition Board of Document 1, the Office of the CitySolicitor to finalize the execution of the agreement between Bell Canada and the City ofOttawa regarding telephone booths on City of Ottawa road allowances.

Department of Urban Planning and Public Works

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Public Works to forward an original copy of theAgreement to the City Clerk and ensure that the terms and conditions of the agreement withBell Canada are implemented and met.


Document 1 Agreement between Bell Canada and the City of Ottawa related to telephonebooths on City road allowances.

8



Document 1

THIS AGREEMENT, made in triplicate this day of , 2000.

BETWEEN:

THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADAa body politic incorporated pursuant to the laws of Canada

(hereinafter referred to as “Bell Canada")

- and -

THE CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF OTTAWAa municipal corporation incorporated pursuant to the

Municipal Act, R.S.O., 1990, c. M.45, and to be re-structured under the

City of Ottawa Act, 1999, S.O. 1999, S.O. 1990, c. 14(hereinafter referred to as the "City")

WHEREAS Bell Canada wishes to install public telephone equipment on municipalroad allowances within the jurisdiction of the City;

AND WHEREAS Paragraph 122 of Section 210 of the Municipal Act, R.S.O. 1990,Chapter M-45 authorizes the council of local municipalities to enter into such contracts forthe erection of public telephone booths upon the municipal road allowances or lands of themunicipality;

AND WHEREAS the City and Bell Canada wish to set forth the terms and conditionsrelating to the location and operation of public telephone equipment (hereinafter referred toas the "telephone booth");

NOW THEREFORE in consideration of the mutual covenants and subject to the termsand conditions in this Agreement, the parties agree as follows:

9


1.00 LICENSE AND USE

1.01 The term of this Agreement shall commence on the date of execution and shallunless renewed, terminate five (5) years after the first day of the month in whichthe Agreement is executed, unless otherwise terminated in accordance with theterms of this Agreement.

1.02 This Agreement shall automatically renew for a three (3) year period on similarterms and conditions unless either the City or Bell Canada give written notice ofcancellation to the other not less than six (6) months prior to the expiration of thisAgreement or the renewal term at which time this Agreement shall terminate andthe privileges thereunder shall come to an end.

1.03 Notwithstanding the expiry or termination of this Agreement, the liabilities andobligations of Bell Canada, its contractors and agents under this Agreement,including all fees and payments shall continue and remain in full force and effectuntil Bell Canada’s equipment is removed from the road allowance and the roadallowance is restored as provided for in this Agreement.

1.04 The City grants to Bell Canada a non-exclusive right to install telephone booths atvarious locations on municipal road allowances under the jurisdiction of the City,specifically on sidewalks and boulevards (hereinafter referred to as the "locations”and identified in Schedule“A” attached hereto), that are approved by theCommissioner of Urban Planning and Public Works, or his designate, based on theConditions Related to Location as set out in Clause 2.00 of this Agreement. Thelist of telephone booth locations as identified in Schedule “A”constitutes anintegral and essential part of this Agreement.

1.05 Upon the mutual agreement of Bell Canada and the Commissioner of UrbanPlanning and Public Works, additional telephone booths may be placed on themunicipal road allowance and the new locations are to be added to Schedule “A”and initialled by the parties to this agreement.

1.06 Bell Canada shall ensure that telephone booths are placed at the agreed uponlocations identified in Schedule “A” and meet all of the conditions as set forth inthis Agreement.

1.07 Bell Canada shall obtain and maintain, at its cost and expense, all licenses, permitsor approvals from federal, provincial, municipal or other government authoritiesthat may be necessary to enable Bell Canada to conduct its business.

1.08 Bell Canada shall operate the telephone booth and shall carry on and conduct allactivities in compliance with all requirements and directions of the CanadianRadio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) and all otherfederal, provincial and municipal statutes and by-laws, and will at all times obey allreasonable orders, directions and requests made by municipal and other publicauthorities.

10


1.09 Bell Canada shall not permit any advertising of any kind whatsoever to bedisplayed on any telephone booth other than Bell Canada’s logo.

1.10 Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the right of the City to permit other partiesto provide and operate telephone booths on its municipal road allowances.

1.11 Nothing in this Agreement shall restrict the right of the City to revoke or changeany location of a telephone booth at its sole discretion. Bell Canada shall removeat its sole expense a telephone booth from any Location within three (3) days ofreceipt of notice in writing from the Commissioner of Urban Planning and PublicWorks.

2.00 CONDITIONS RELATED TO LOCATION

2.01 A telephone booth shall be placed such that the front surface is parallel to thedirection of the sidewalk or pedestrian flow and if there is more than one telephonebooth the front surfaces shall also line up with one another.

2.02 At least 2.6 metres of sidewalk immediately adjacent to the telephone booth shallbe maintained clear of all obstructions and available for uninhibited passage, exceptwhere the sidewalk or other area used for pedestrian passage is less that 2.6 metresin which case the at least 1.83 metres immediately adjacent to the telephone boothshall be maintained clear of all obstructions.

2.03 A telephone booth shall not be placed within 10 metres of an intersection asmeasured from the edge of curb or curb extension in order to provide adequatesight lines.

2.04 A telephone booth shall not be placed so as to obstruct access to buildingentrances or to be located in such a way as to block windows.

2.05 A telephone booth shall not be placed on the municipal road allowance so as toconstitute a visibility obstruction for pedestrians or vehicles, a safety hazard, aphysical obstruction for pedestrians or vehicles, or an obstruction to maintenanceoperations.

2.06 Bell Canada shall not do or permit anything to be done at any of the locationswhich results in the creation of a nuisance.

2.07 A telephone booth shall not be placed so as to obstruct or interfere with passengeringress or egress to or from a bus at an authorized public bus stop.

2.08 A minimum of 3 metres shall be maintained between a telephone booth and anyprivate approach or vehicular access to the municipal road allowance.

2.09 On municipal road allowances without a sidewalk, telephone booths shall not belocated closer than 3 metres to the curb or traveled portion of the roadway.

2.10 Excluding existing telephone booths which are identified in Schedule “A”, anyfuture new telephone booth placed on the road allowance will require the consentof the adjacent property owner.

11


3.00 INSTALLATION AND ALTERATIONS

3.01 Bell Canada agrees that all installation, repair or replacement of any telephonebooth shall be made at Bell Canada’s sole expense and shall be completed to thesatisfaction of the Commissioner of Urban Planning and Public Works.

3.02 Bell Canada shall submit to the Commissioner of Urban Planning and PublicWorks upon the commencement of this Agreement a list of the total number oftelephone booths that are located on municipal road allowances under thejurisdiction of the City, including their exact location as identified in Schedule “A”.

4.00 MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR

4.01 Bell Canada shall, at all times, at its sole cost and expense, maintain the telephonebooth in a clean, sanitary and safe condition with the physical integrity andappearance maintained. Bell Canada’s obligations hereunder include, but are notlimited to, the obligation to repair any damage due to vandalism and toimmediately remove all posters, signs or graffiti placed on the booth.

4.02 Bell Canada shall be responsible for maintaining the surface underneath andimmediately adjacent to the telephone booth.

4.03 Bell Canada shall repair any damage sustained to any property of the City or anythird party, arising out of the enjoyment of the rights granted to Bell Canada bythis Agreement.

4.04 The City may at any time during the term of this Agreement examine the conditionor state of repair of any telephone booth to ensure that Bell Canada has compliedwith the provisions of this Agreement.

4.05 Where an inspection by the City reveals that repair or maintenance under thisAgreement is necessary, the City shall give Bell Canada written notice of the needfor such repair or maintenance. Bell Canada agrees promptly and in accordancewith such notice to commence or cause the repair or maintenance to becommenced within the time limited in such notice and to diligently proceed tocomplete the same in a good and workmanlike manner.

5.00 COMPENSATION

5.01 The net daily average revenue (“NDAR”) of a public telephone is defined as thenet daily average of: revenue derived over previous month from coins, collectcalls, Calling Cards, commercial credit cards, QuickChange/LaPuce prepaidcash cards, 3rd number calls or Zenith calls; less payments over the previousmonth for both applicable taxes and settlement of long distance calls not whollytransported by Bell Canada, for all local and long distance call originating fromthe telephone booth in question.

12


5.02 Bell Canada shall pay to the City compensation based on the NDAR generatedfrom each telephone booth listed in Schedule “A” over the previous month at arate of 16% of NDAR for each telephone booth.

5.03 Bell Canada shall issue payment for the previous month’s compensation to the Cityno later than the last day of the current month where the previous month’saggregate compensation for the telephone booths specified in Schedule “A” is$10.00 or more.

5.04 If the previous month’s aggregate compensation for the telephone booths specifiedin Schedule “A” is less than $10.00 then Bell Canada shall issue payment for theprevious month’s compensation to the City when either the accumulatedcompensation from subsequent months amounts to $10.00 or more, or a six monthperiod has elapsed, whichever occurs first. The City is not entitled to interestpayment from Bell Canada on such outstanding balances.

6.00 TAXES, RATES AND FEES

6.01 Bell Canada shall pay all taxes, rates, and fees whether federal, provincial,municipal or otherwise, payable in connection with any of its activities or businesscarried on at the locations identified in Schedule “A” which are charged in eachyear of the term of this Agreement.

7.00 INDEMNITY AND LIMITATION OF LIABILITY

7.01 Bell Canada shall indemnify and save harmless the City, its servant, agents, andemployees from and against; any and all losses, liabilities, claims, suits, actions,demands, expenses, damages and costs (and without limiting the generality of theforegoing, including solicitor and client costs) which may be brought or madeagainst the City or which the City may pay or incur and which arise out of or inconnection with: any of the rights, licenses or privileges granted to Bell Canadapursuant to this Agreement; any breach, violation or non-performance by BellCanada of its covenants or obligations pursuant to this Agreement.

7.02 Except in the event of willful default or gross negligence by the City, the City shallnot be responsible in any way for any injury to any person or any loss or damage,however caused, to any property belonging to Bell Canada or the servants, agents,employees, invitees or licensees of Bell Canada howsoever caused and arising outof the installation, repair, replacement, use or existence of the telephone booth onCity property.

7.03 Except in the event of willful default or gross negligence by the City, Bell Canadashall not have nor make any claim or demand, nor bring any action or suit orpetition against the City, its servants, agents or employees for any damage whichBell Canada may sustain by reason of any suspension, interruption ordiscontinuance of use of any of the telephone booth in whole or in part fromwhatever cause.

13


8.00 INSURANCE

8.01 Bell Canada shall maintain during the term of the AgreementCommercial/Comprehensive General Liability insurance acceptable to the City andsubject to limits of not less than $2,000,000.00 inclusive per occurrence for bodilyinjury, death and damage to property including loss of use thereof.

The Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability insurance shall include coveragefor:( i) premises and operations liability(ii) cross liability(iii) severability of interest clause(iv) contingent employers liability(v) personal injury liability(vi) liability with respect to non-owned licensed motor vehicles, if applicable to

the operations of the Agreement

8.02 The Commercial/Comprehensive General Liability insurance policy shall be in thename of Bell Canada and shall name the Corporation of the City of Ottawa as anadditional insured thereunder.

8.03 Bell Canada shall maintain during the term of the Agreement, Motor VehicleLiability insurance in respect to owned licensed Motor Vehicles subject to a limitof not less than $1,000,000.00 inclusive per occurrence for bodily injury, death anddamage to property including loss of use thereof.

8.04 Such insurance policies shall contain an endorsement to provide the City withthirty (30) days written notice of cancellation.

8.05 Evidence of insurance satisfactory to the City's Insurance Administrator shall beprovided prior to the execution of the Agreement.

9.00 DEFAULT, TERMINATION AND RELOCATION

9.01 In the event that Bell Canada is in default of any of its covenants, terms orconditions contained in this Agreement and if the City serves notice in writingupon Bell Canada specifying the default and requiring the Bell Canada to rectifythe default within thirty (30) days following receipt of this notice, or if the defaultis such that, in the opinion of the City, it cannot be rectified within thirty (30) daysand Bell Canada fails to commence rectification or fails to proceed withrectification in a manner satisfactory to the City within the said thirty (30) days, theCity may at its option immediately terminate this Agreement upon written noticeto Bell Canada.

9.02 In the event that Bell Canada makes an assignment for the benefit of creditors orbecoming bankrupt or insolvent takes the benefit of any Act that may be in forcefor bankrupt or insolvent debtors, or if Bell Canada is wound up or accepts thesurrender of its charter, then, in every such case, this Agreement may, at the optionof the City, be terminated forthwith upon written notice to Bell Canada.

14


9.03 Either party may terminate this Agreement upon giving thirty (30) days writtennotice to the other party.

9.04 Upon termination of this Agreement for any reason, Bell Canada shall immediatelyremove its telephone booth from the locations and shall restore, at its sole cost, thelocations to the same condition in which they existed prior to the placement of thetelephone booth at the locations. Bell Canada, in undertaking such removal shalldo no damage to City property and shall make good any damage which may beoccasioned thereto. If Bell Canada fails to remove any telephone booth andrestore the locations within thirty (30) days of termination of this Agreement, theCity may, at its option, remove and dispose of the telephone booth as it sees fit andrestore the locations at the sole cost and expense of Bell Canada.

9.05 In the event that the City requires the removal or relocation of a telephone boothfor the purposes of making repairs to, maintaining or constructing additional publicservices or infrastructure or for other reasons of a reasonable nature, Bell Canadashall cooperate in having the telephone booth removed or relocated at its expenseand shall make no claim against the City in respect of such removal or relocation.

10.00 GENERAL

10.01 Bell Canada shall immediately pay and discharge any liens or other charges arising by reason of any act or omission on the part of Bell Canada, its servants, agents oremployees, whether caused by any work, services or materials which it or itsservants, agents or employees have performed or supplied in connection with thetelephone booth or by failure to pay any sales, corporation, income or estate tax orany succession duty for which it or its estate is responsible. If Bell Canada fails topay or discharge any charge registered against any City property and legalproceedings are taken which successfully validate the said charge, the City maypay the said charge or charges, secure the discharge thereof and require from BellCanada the immediate repayment of all sums paid by the City in securing suchdischarge.

10.02 Any notices under this Agreement given to the parties hereunder shall beconclusively deemed to be sufficiently given if personally delivered, sent by prepaidregistered mail or faxed as follows:

(a) to Bell Canada at:

Bell CanadaPublic Access Services40 Norelco Drive Floor 2 Toronto, Ottawa, OntarioM9L 2X6

FAX NUMBER: 1-800-732- 0670

15


(b) to the City at:

Commissioner of Urban Planning and Public WorksThe Corporation of the City of Ottawa2nd Floor North, Rideau Pavilion111 Sussex Drive,Ottawa City Hall, Ottawa, OntarioK1N 5A1

FAX NUMBER: (613) 244-5474

or to any other address as may be designated in writing by the parties. Noticegiven by registered mail, if posted in Ontario, shall conclusively be deemed to havebeen received on the fifth business day following the date on which such notice ismailed. In the event of a postal strike, notice may only be given by personaldelivery.

10.03 Nothing herein shall be construed as in any way constituting this a partnershipamong or a joint venture by the parties hereto, or be construed to evidence theintention of the parties to constitute such a relationship. Neither party shall holditself out contrary to the terms of this clause by advertising or otherwise, norbecome liable or bound by any representation, act or omission whatsoever of theother party contrary to the provisions of this clause.

10.04 All contracts, whether of employment or otherwise, entered into by Bell Canadawith respect to this Agreement shall be made by Bell Canada as principal and notas agent of the City and the City shall have no liability thereon.

10.05 This Agreement is the entire Agreement between the parties with regard to thematters dealt with in it, and there are no understandings or Agreements,representations, warranties, conditions or collateral terms, verbal or otherwise,existing between the parties except as expressly set out in this Agreement. Theconsideration stated herein is the sole consideration and inducement for theexecution of this Agreement.

10.06 Should any provision of this Agreement be void, voidable or unenforceable for anyreason whatsoever, it shall be considered separate and severable from theremaining provisions of this Agreement, which shall remain in force and be bindingas though the said provision had not been included.

10.07 This Agreement shall be construed and governed by the laws of the Province ofOntario.

10.08 All references shall be read with such changes in number and gender as may beappropriate according to whether the reference is to a male or female person, or acorporation or partnership.

10.09 The insertion of headings is for convenience of reference only and shall not beconstrued so as to affect the interpretation or construction of this Agreement.

10.10 The reference to any legislation in this Agreement shall be deemed to include allamendments thereto and all regulations thereunder and all statutes, including all

16


amendments thereto and regulations thereunder, that may be substituted for thatlegislation.

10.11 The waiver by the City or Bell Canada of the strict performance of any condition,covenant or Agreement herein contained shall not constitute a waiver of orabrogate such or any other condition, covenant or Agreement nor shall it bedeemed a waiver of any subsequent breach of the same or of any other condition,covenant or Agreement.

10.12 This Agreement shall not be modified, varied or amended except by an instrumentin writing signed by the parties hereto.

10.13 This Agreement shall enure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties heretoand their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, includingsuccessors in title, and permitted assigns.

10.14 If two (2) or more persons are liable under the terms of this Agreement to the City,their obligations shall be both joint and several.

10.15 Neither party will reassign this Agreement without the prior written consent of theother, which shall not be unreasonably withheld.

10.16 This Agreement is subject to the approval of the Ottawa Transition Board.

17


IN WITNESS WHEREOF The Corporation of the City of Ottawa has hereunto affixed its

seal by the hands of its proper officer this day of 2000, Bell Canada has

hereto affixed its seal by the hands of its proper officer this day of 2000.

SIGNED SEALED AND DELIVERED

THE BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY OF CANADA

____________________________________(I have authority to bind the corporation)Per:Office:

_____________________________________(I have authority to bind the corporation)Per:Office:

THE CORPORATION OF THECITY OF OTTAWA

______________________________________

Mayor

______________________________________

City Clerk

18


SCHEDULE “A”

LOCATION OF TELEPHONE BOOTHS

SCHEDULE “A”Bell Telephone Booths on City of Ottawa Road Allowances

No. Abutting Civic Address Telephone No.

1 38 Bayswater Avenue 613-725-0986

2 38 Bayswater Avenue 613-725-0827

3 331 Cumberland Street 613-562-9090

4 331 Cumberland Street 613-562-3429

5 102 Fairmont Avenue 613-725-0164

6 391 Cumberland Avenue 613-562-3431

7 35 George Street 613-562-9071

8 35 George Street 613-562-9065

9 87 George Street 613-562-9130

10 87 George Street 613-241-9661

11 551 Gladstone Avenue 613-238-0918

12 469 Bronson (SE corner) 613-238-0117

13 31 Gloucester Street 613-780-9926

14 210 Gloucester Street 613-780-9211

15 297 Lisgar Street 613-238-0277

16 198 Main Street 613-238-0814

17 112.5 Osgoode 613-238-0279

18 170 Second Avenue 613-780-9274

19 435 Sunnyside Avenue 613-730-9913

20 41 Third Avenue 613-238-0665

21 61 Waverley Street 613-238-0160

19


April 11, 2000 ACS2000-PW-OPS-0004(File: FPG1100/0110)





Action/Exécution

3. Tender 01400-96873-T02 Routine Sewer Cleaning Services Tender 00100-91063-T01 Building Sewer Maintenance

Appel d’offres no 01400-96873-T02 - Services de nettoyage périodiquedes égoutsAppel d’offres no 00100-91063-T01 - Entretien des branchementsd’égout

Recommendations

1. That Tender 01400-96873-T02 for routine sewer cleaning services not be awarded to 3564177 Canada Inc (Aqua Flo), who submitted the lowest tender at a total cost of$82,775.00 for the work in schedules A and B.

2. That Tender 01400-96873-T02 for routine sewer cleaning services be awarded to Sewer-Matic Inspection and Reconstruction Services Inc in the amount of $126,665.00,this being the second lowest tender received for the work in schedules A and B.

3. That Tender 00100-91063-T01 for building sewer maintenance not be awarded to3564177 Canada Inc (Aqua Flo), who submitted the lowest tender at a cost of$63,600.00.

4. That Tender 00100-91063-T01 for building sewer maintenance be awarded to Sewer-Matic Inspection and Reconstruction Services Inc in the amount of $68,220, this beingthe second lowest tender received.

20


5. That 3564177 Canada Inc (Aqua Flo) not be considered for any other City of Ottawawork for the year 2000.

April 14, 2000 (9:40a)

April 17, 2000 (9:08a)



RY:ry

Contact: Ray Yantha - 244-5300 ext. 1-3769

Financial Comment

Recommendation 2

Funds are available for the year 2000 estimated cost of $126,665.00 in the Sanitary Seweraccount 0810028 for these purposes.

Recommendation 4

Funds are available for the year 2000 estimated cost of $68,220.00 in the Building SewerServices account 0810025 for these services.

April 13, 2000 (3:04p)


CP:cds

Executive Report


The Department undertakes routine cleaning of its sanitary sewers on a two year cycle withone half of the sewers being cleaned one year and the other half being cleaned the followingyear. The Department also undertakes preventative maintenance of building sewerconnections in situations where roots from a city tree are contributing to the sewer problem.

21


As the Department does not have the required resources to undertake this work, theseservices are purchased from the private sector. The Purchasing By-law 205-99, section 19(6) delegates the authority to the DepartmentHeads to award contracts emanating from a Request for Tender provided that the award is tothe lowest responsive bidder; that sufficient funds are available and identified in appropriateaccounts within Council approved departmental estimates including authorized revisions; andthe provisions of the by-law are followed.

With respect to these particular tenders, the Department is recommending that these two contracts not be awarded to the lowest responsive bidder, therefore the award of thesecontracts must be submitted to City Council for consideration and approval.

Recommendation 1

Tender quotes were received for the routine cleaning of sewers as follows:

Schedule A Schedule B Total A + BCompany Price/m Total Price/m Total Cost

Aqua Flo $0.215/m $39,775 $0.215/m $43,000 $ 82,775Sewer-Matic $0.329/m $60,865 $0.329/m $65,800 $126,665Drain-All $0.470/m $86,950 $0.470/m $94,000 $180,950Scooter Rooter $1.280/m $236,800 $1.270/m $254,000 $490,800

While Aqua Flo did submit the lowest bid for the tendered work, the Department has hadconcerns with their declining performance for some time now and has been bringing theseconcerns to their attention on an ongoing basis, with the expectation that their performancewould improve. Unfortunately, the required improvements have not materialized despiterepeated assurances by representatives of Aqua Flo that they would. Following is a briefhistory of their recent contracts with the Department and a record of their performance.

In 1996 Aqua Flo was awarded one of three tenders the Department had called for thecleaning and video inspection of sewers. It was a one year contract with two one yearextension options for 1997 and 1998. The work in these contracts was to commence in lateApril/early May with the majority of work being completed before the winter season (earlyNovember). Winter work is generally limited to emergency type situations.

In October of 1996 staff met with Aqua Flo to express concerns that only 10% of therequired work had been completed between April and October. Staff received a commitmentfrom Aqua Flo that they would complete the work by mid-December. This is documented ina letter to Aqua Flo dated November 15, 1996. On January 31, 1997 Aqua Flo was advisedthat they had only completed 54% of the required work in the contract, however, since they

22


were progressing and appeared intent on completing the work, the Department was preparedto give them the benefit of the doubt by giving them additional time to complete the tenderedwork. They were also advised that we would consider extending the contract for 1997,provided that all the outstanding work was completed prior to March 31, 1997. Aqua Flodid agree to this and again on March 24, 1997 the Department wrote to Aqua Flo to advisethat 32% of the work was still outstanding and it was apparent that they would not completethe 1996 work before the end of March. As they were working on this contract daily and itwas determined that they would complete the work, albeit, past the deadline, the 1997extension was exercised.

In 1997 the work did improve and, therefore, the second extension option for 1998 wasoffered to Aqua Flo, by letter dated March 18, 1998, again subject to a commitment fromthem that all outstanding work from 1997 be completed prior to any new work beingassigned to them and that they undertake the work in a progressive, continuous manner. Thiswas accepted.

Throughout the summer of 1998, staff verbally communicated with Aqua Flo concerns thatthey were missing work too frequently and that the work was not progressing satisfactorily. Finally on September 24th staff met with Aqua Flo and advised that they had been at workonly 33 out of a possible 100 working days and that only 38% of the contracted work hadbeen completed. Staff were assured that Aqua Flo was committed to completing the work onschedule and that the required resources would be expended to ensure that all work wascompleted before October 30, 1998. Between September 24th and another meeting withAqua Flo on November 2, 1998 numerous calls were placed to Aqua Flo expressing furtherconcerns about their ability to complete the work on time. At the November 2, 1998 meetingfurther documents were provided which showed that they had been at work only 14 out of apossible 26 working days since the September 24th meeting, at which they had ensured staffthat they would put additional resources on this contract to ensure that they would completeit on time. Aqua Flo was advised to return all uncompleted work to the City and the contractwas terminated. A post contract evaluation was filled out which indicated that the contractrequirements were only partially met. Staff indicated that Aqua Flo would be considered forfuture work only if they provided assurances that the tender would be completed on time andthat they would attend work daily. Two appointments were made to meet with Aqua Flo staffto discuss the post contract evaluation but no company representative showed up for eithermeeting.

In 1999 two tenders for the cleaning and video inspection of sewers were tendered withAqua Flo being the low bidder in one of them. The contractor’s poor performance inprevious years as well as their unsatisfactory post contract evaluation were seriouslyconsidered prior to agreeing to award them the contract. The contractor had acknowledgedhis previous difficulties and gave assurances that there would be no similar problems in 1999,therefore, staff decided to give them one last chance.

23


Staff met with Aqua Flo staff on May 5, 1999 to go over the expectations given the previousproblems. It was pointed out again that while the quality of the work they did in previousyears was good, their lack of commitment to completing the work in a timely manner was notacceptable and would not be tolerated in 1999. Staff were assured that there would be noproblems completing the work on time. Throughout the year there was ongoing verbalcontact between city staff and Aqua Flo staff regarding their lack of performance. OnAugust 10, 1999 staff met with Aqua Flo to discuss the lack of progress as only 23% of therequired work had been completed. At the conclusion of the contract, records showed thatAqua Flo had been at work only 66 out of a possible 120 working days and that consequentlyonly 53% of the required work was completed.

A post contract evaluation was completed which reflected Aqua Flo’s unsatisfactoryperformance. It indicated that the contract requirements were not met and that this firm wasnot recommended for future contracts with the city. The post contract evaluation wasreviewed and signed by Denis Tremblay on January 5, 2000.

Aqua Flo have now submitted the lowest bid for the 2000 tender for the routine cleaning ofsewers. In assessing their bid staff have given serious consideration to the following:

• the declining performance of Aqua Flo over the past four years,

• the numerous opportunities staff have given Aqua Flo to improve their performance,

• the numerous assurances Aqua Flo have given that they will fulfill their contractualobligations,

• their ongoing failure to fulfill their commitments to provide the work contracted,

• the marginal post contract evaluation in 1998, and

• the unsatisfactory post contract evaluation in 1999.

Taking into consideration all of the above factors, staff have no reason to believe that AquaFlo’s performance would be any better in 2000 than it has been over the past four years. While they have submitted a favourable price for the work tendered, it is imperative that theroutine cleaning of sewers be undertaken in a timely and efficient manner and that the workbe completed on time, to ensure that the City minimizes the risk of sewer blockages andpossible backups into adjacent residences and/or businesses. As a result, staff have noalternative but to recommend that Aqua Flo not be awarded Tender 01400-96873-T02 forroutine sewer cleaning services for the year 2000.

24


Recommendation 2

Sewer-Matic Inspection and Reconstruction Services Inc submitted the second lowest bid forthe work tendered. They have provided contract work to the Department for numerousyears and have satisfactorily completed the required work. As a result they have receivedfavourable post contract evaluations for the work performed. In 1998 they were thecontractor for the following works tendered by this Department:

• Cleaning and video inspection of sewers

• Special sewer cleaning services

• Building sewer maintenance

• Re-lining of building sewer laterals, and

• Catch basin sump cleaning.

Awarding the contract to the second lowest bidder will cost approximately $44,000 morethan awarding to the lowest bidder. However, given the lowest bidder’s (Aqua Flo)unsatisfactory performance and unreliability, awarding the contract to the lowest bidder is notrecommended. The Department does not have the resources required to undertake the workinternally and therefore awarding the contract to the second lowest bidder is recommended.

In reviewing the bids received, the price submitted by the second lowest bidder is consideredto be reasonable for the work being performed, and while it is substantially higher than thelowest bidder, it is reasonably in line with the tender prices from four and five years ago. Thefollowing outlines the unit prices for routine sewer cleaning for the past seven years.

1993 $0.220 per metre1994 $0.179 per metre1995 $0.159 per metre1996 $0.278 per metre1997 $0.278 per metre1998 $0.227 per metre1999 $0.227 per metre 2000 low bidder $0.215 per metre2000 second lowest bidder $0.329 per metre

The unit price of $0.329 represents an increase of 18% over the unit prices from five yearsago (1996).

Recommendation 3

25


Tender quotes were received for the building sewer maintenance as follows:

Aqua Flo $ 63,600Sewer-Matic $ 68,200Scooter Rooter $146,200

As detailed in recommendation 1 above, the performance of the low bidder, Aqua Flo overthe past four years has not been satisfactory and as part of their post contract evaluation inthe fall of 1999, the Department indicated that Aqua Flo should not be considered for futureworks. They have demonstrated very poor reliability and the Department is, therefore,recommending that Tender 0100-91063-T01 not be awarded to Aqua Flo

Recommendation 4

Sewer-Matic has performed numerous work for the Department satisfactorily, including this contract in 1999. They are the second lowest bidder and it is, therefore, being recommendedthat Tender 0100-91063-T01 be awarded to Sewer-Matic Inspection and ReconstructionServices Inc.

Recommendation 5

Given the unsatisfactory performance and unreliability of Aqua Flo over the past four years,the Department is not in favour of awarding any work to Aqua Flo in 2000, even if they arethe lowest bidder. Should a situation arise whereby Aqua Flo is the low bidder on otherworks, the Commissioner would award the work to the second lowest bidder, without havingto report to City Council, provided that all other provision of the purchasing by-law areadhered to.

Disposition

The Commissioner of Urban Planning and Public Works will issue the required contractaward documents and purchase requisitions to effect the award of these tenders as approvedby City Council.

26


This page intentionally left blank

27


February 15, 2000 ACS2000-CV-DIA-0001(File: ACS1300)

Disability Issues Advisory Committee Ward/QuartierCity Wide

• Policy, Priorities and BudgetingCommittee / Comité des politiques, despriorités et des budgets


Action/Exécution

4. Licenses - Taxis - Accessible Cabs

Permis - Taxis - Taxis Accessibles

Recommendations

1. That the Department of Urban Planning and Public Works and the Office of the CitySolicitor develop the legislative requirements in the format of an application for speciallegislation for the “new” City of Ottawa to license, regulate and govern accessibletaxicabs separately from taxicabs, and submit a report to City Council for itsconsideration.

2. That City Council, on approving the report referred to in Recommendation 1, forward the item to the “new” City of Ottawa requesting that the legislative authority be obtainedas a priority.

3. That City Council, on approving Recommendation 1, forward its decision to theTransition Board so that the Board is aware of the community need for accessibletaxicab service and request that the Board take whatever action it considers appropriatein the transition phase for the “new” City of Ottawa.

Bob BrownChairperson

BB:cl

Contact: Bob Brown 731-1989Carole Langford - 244-5300 ext. 1-3617

28


Policy, Priorities and Budgeting Committee Recommendation - March 30, 2000< The Committee concurs and so recommends.

City Council Decision - April 5, 2000< 9/3 Moved by Mayor Watson, Seconded by Councillor Bickford,

Whereas the Disability Issues Advisory Committee has expressed concern with the lackof any accessible taxicabs to service the physically handicapped in the City of Ottawa;

And Whereas to address this concern it is proposed to increase the number of taxicabowner licences in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 19 of By-law L-6;

And Whereas it is further proposed that the additional taxicab owner licences will besubject to certain conditions, including the condition that the taxicab owner own anaccessible taxicab;

And Whereas it is deemed appropriate that the Disability Issues Advisory Committeeand representatives from the taxi industry be given an opportunity to makerepresentations on this proposal;

Be It Therefore Resolved That:

S the report from the Disability Issues Advisory Committee on Accessible Cabs(PP&B Report 6, Item 11); and

S a recommendation to increase the number of taxicab owner licenses to a maximumof 12 new licences subject to a condition that the licences only be available toowners of accessible cabs be referred to the CSOC Committee of April 26, 2000for consideration. - Carried.

29


Financial Comment

Subject to City Council's approval of this report, any required funds associated withRecommendation 1 are available within the approved annual estimates for the Department ofUrban Planning and Public Works, as well as, the Department of Corporate Services, Officeof the City Solicitor.

March 17, 2000 (1:30p)


RL:cds

Executive Report

Reasons Behind Recommendation

At its meeting of November 18, 1999, the Disability Issues Advisory Committee discussedthe current accessible cab situation in the Region including the regulatory framework(Provincial legislation and municipal licensing), the reasons the private sector has not seen fitto offer the service in quantity, and the options that might be available to the City to ensureadequate accessible cab service.

The views of the Committee were in regards to OC Transpo's suggestion, repeated in thenewspaper editorial, that to encourage provision any licensed accessible cab should begranted access to able-bodied fares throughout the Region instead of just within theboundaries of the municipality of license. The Committee agreed that while any first stepsare welcome the idea is at best only a partial solution. For example, there would be noguarantee that priority service would be given to persons with disabilities, there would be noguarantee that a "critical mass" of accessible cabs would be provided, and without one brokermanaging a "fleet" there would be no central call and dispatch centre, and no assurances thatthere would be around-the-clock service.

The Committee discussed several options, including:

• accessible cabs to pick up able-bodied fares but with persons with disabilities somehowassured priority;

• to write the Editor of the Citizen with DIAC's views on the O-C Transpo (andeditorial)suggestion

30


• to write Mayor Watson requesting that he ask the Province for changes to thelegislation;

• to recommend legislative changes by way of submission to PP&B and CC

Consultation

The Department of Urban Planning and Public Works, City Solicitor and Taxi AdvisoryCommittee

DIAC at its meetings of November 18, 1999 and February 15, 2000 discussed the above-noted item.

Disposition

Department of Urban Planning and Public Works and Office of the City Solicitor.

31


April 17, 2000 ACS2000-CM-BUS-0008(File: RRH3813/0110)

Department of Community Services Ward/QuartierOT3 % Southgate



Action/Exécution

5. Royal Oak Pathway: Permanent Closure and Removal of ParkDedication

Sentier Royal Oak: fermeture permanente et suppression de ladénomination du parc

Recommendations

1. That the public pathway linking Royal Oak Court to the Greenboro open space systembe permanently closed.

2. That Park Dedication By-Law 159-89, designating the Royal Oak pathway (Block 16,Plan 4M-702) as a public park, be rescinded.

April 17, 2000 (9:08a)

April 18, 2000 (8:14a)

Janette FooCommissioner of Community Services


PL:pl

Contact: Paul Landry - 244-5300 ext. 1-4042

Financial Comment

There are no financial implications as a result of City Council approval of this report.

32


All costs and revenues generated as a result of the permanent closure and disposal of thepublic pathway have been identified in a companion report from Policies, Priorities andBudgeting Committee, recommending the sale of the walkway block to the abutting propertyowners.

April 17, 2000 (1:41p)


ML:cds

Executive Report


On November 29, 1995 a public meeting was held in Greenboro to discuss the closure of apublic pathway block linking Royal Oak Court to the Greenboro open space system (seeDocument 1 for location plan). A total of 28 residents of the Royal Oak/Royal Elmneighbourhood attended the meeting and expressed a strong desire to see the public pathwayclosed to reduce unwanted pedestrian “short-cut” traffic from Greenboro through theirstreets to the intersection of Hunt Club and Albion Roads. The residents testified to asignificant amount of noise, vandalism, break-ins and other serious disturbances to theirneighbourhood, which they attributed to non-residents using the pathway.

On December 6, 1995, City Council approved the following motions presented by the WardCouncillor:

THAT this pathway link be closed temporarily, for a period of two years, to allow the Cityand residents to evaluate the effectiveness of the closure in solving the problems experiencedby residents on the courts;

THAT if the closure be deemed successful in reducing vandalism, robberies and disturbanceson the two courts, that Council initiate the process to close the pathway permanently.

The pathway was closed in September 1996 by way of fencing erected across the rear of thepathway block and signage was installed indicating the temporary closure by order of CityCouncil. The pathway has remained closed since the expiry of the two-year closure period inSeptember 1998. A number of individual written statements and a group petition from arearesidents have been received, testifying to the sharp decline in disturbances to theneighbourhood in the period following the closure of the pathway.

33


In spring of 1999, the Ward Councillor and the residents of Royal Oak Court/Royal ElmPrivate formally requested that the City initiate the process of permanently closing thepathway. In keeping with the Corporate Policy on Real Property Transactions RegardingCity-Owned Parkland, City Council approved on December 1st, 1999, by a two-thirdsmajority, the following recommendation:

THAT public consultations be held regarding the potential permanent closure of a publicpathway linking Royal Oak Court to the Greenboro open space system.

A public meeting was held on March 7th, 2000 at the Greenboro Pavilion to discuss thepathway’s permanent closure and the removal of its park designation. Twenty (20) residentsfrom the Royal Oak/Royal Elm neighbourhood attended the meeting and were unanimous intheir support for the permanent closure and disposal of the public pathway. At the meetingstaff outlined the process for closure and disposal, stressing that in order to be declaredsurplus to the needs of the Corporation, an agreement of sale of the walkway property withone or both of the abutting property owners would have be reached.

Both abutting property owners indicated their interest in purchasing the block. PropertyServices have advised that should Council approve Royal Oak Pathway no longer beingrequired for parkland purposes, Property Services will immediately initiate discussions withthe abutting property owners for the purchase of the subject lands. Should these discussionsbe sucessful, the final purchase agreement will be brought to PP&B on June 1 andsubsequently forwarded to City Council for approval.

Consultation

As required under the Corporate Policy on Real Property Transactions Regarding City-Owned Parkland, two public meetings have been held on this issue. The first was held onNovember 29, 1995 to discuss the concerns of the residents of Royal Oak Court and RoyalOak Private over the pathway in question. A total of 28 residents were in attendance, as wellas a representative of the SouthKeys/Greenboro Community Association and the WardCouncillor.

The second meeting was held on March 7th, 2000 to discuss the permanent closure anddisposal of the walkway block. A total of 20 residents were in attendance, as well as theexecutive of the SouthKeys/Greenboro Community Association and the Ward Councillor.

Written statements from residents as well as a group petition supporting the permanentclosure of the walkway have been received and are on file. The SouthKeys/GreenboroCommunity Association have passed the following resolution:

THAT the SouthKeys/Greenboro Community Association supports the permanent closure ofthe Royal Oak Pathway.

34


Disposition

A companion report, prepared by Property Services Branch, is on the May 11, 2000 agendaof the Policy, Priority and Budget Committee. This report recommends that the Royal Oakpathway be declared surplus to the needs of the City of Ottawa under the Corporate Policyon Real Property Transactions Regarding City-Owned Parkland, and that said property besold to the abutting property owners at market value.


Document 1 Location Plan for the Royal Oak Pathway

35



Document 1

Location Plan for the Royal Oak Pathway

community services and operations committee comité des … · 2006-09-25 · community services...

Documents